Someone an article posted on DU saying the Minister Farrakhan made an anti-semetic remark. Reading through the thread, I felt like I was witnessing the republican "the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights Movement, citing to (former) klansman Senator Byrd, as evidence.

Following was my response:

I know that the following comment will be angrily dismissed and/or flamed, but ...

from reading the article, the Minister Farrakhan did not say that "the Jews and Zionists ...", as the article says; what he said was "the 'Zionists' (are) trying to push the US into war." Is this a matter of semantics, or a distinction without a difference? I think not!

The fact is, one does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.

OKAY ... HERE COMES THE PART MANY WILL REALLY HATE ... It is not a stretch to argue that the Zionists are to Judaism, what radical Islamist are to Islam, or what (in a more extreme example) what klansmen are to Christianity.

The Minister Farrakhan is many things, some of which are faults of his long ago past, and this past flavors the present perception of many. But to disabuse yourself of these misperceptions, I encourage those of interest to listen to/read his teachings of the last decade or two (his actual words, not a report of what he was to have said). I think that you would find that he promotes a pro-Black message (though this might prove troublesome enough for many); but the message is not an anti-{insert flavor of your choice} message.

If any black people do anything that pisses off white America, it will never be forgotten or forgiven. The Reverends Jackson and Sharpton are still being taken to task for what they've done 20 and 30 years ago. Minister Farrakhan in particular draws white anger from his past anti-Jewish and regular pro-Black remarks. Add to that he's not following the majority religion and has a large not-white following, and he's the "scary angry black man" that scares a lot of white people.

It's a no-win situation. No one is going to care what you say and they'll angrily wonder why you're defending him.

MLK was very much hated while he was still alive. Tim Wise details his "conversion" from radical activist to peaceful, non-violent hero. MLK's legacy has been so domesticated that the rabid racist RW feels like they are "inheritors" of the dreams of civil rights. See Glenn Beck's march on Washington and Tim's article here http://www.timwise.org/2011/01/twisted-dream-the-disapp...

He was nonviolently radical.He has been sanitized and de-clawed over the years so as to make him mainstream. But as another poster said, they hated him then. (I second that Wise piece on his legacy.)

The worse thing they could have done to him was to make him mainstream. This killed his message more effectively than any bullet.

People forget about all the other issues that he stood up for, and think that he only fought for the desegregation of America.

I'll agree that non-violent change is certainly more palatable than violent change, but as we just saw in Egypt, the establishment still goes down kicking and screaming. (And utilizes thuggery to fight back)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.